As Malcolm X once stated “I’m for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it's for or against.” Although Malcolm X was an extremely controversial human rights activist, his statement is the truth, even if he is the one who stated it. Because I agree with this sentiment, I affirm the resolution which states Resolved: Boo Radley should be charged with the murder of Bob Ewell.
In this resolution, the following words will be defined from Law.com Legal Dictionary. The resolution uses the word “charged.” Charged is defined as “in a criminal case, the specific statement of what crime the party is accused contained in the indictment or criminal complaint.” In other words, “charge” simply means to bring the incident to court and accuse the person of the crime, not to convict him of the accusation. In addition, the type of “murder” in this resolution is not specified. Thus, the definition of second-degree murder, which is what Boo Radley would be accused of, is defined as “a non-premeditated killing resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility.”
Our value premise is consistency with the social contract and we validate this standard with the political thoughts of Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes is considered the founding father of modern political philosophy, so his justifications are sound. To summarize, the state of nature is violent. Thus, people join society out of self-interest to protect themselves and make a social contract with the government. This contract states that the people will follow the laws of the government as long as the government promises to protect them from each other. This value of consistency with the social contract relates to the resolution because this case involves the criminal justice system, which is a governmental actor. All governmental actors are tied to a social contract; thus, the value is consistency with the social contract.
First, there is sufficient evidence and probable cause that Boo Radley killed Bob Ewell. Even if Boo Radley is innocent of the crime, all of the evidence leads us to assume that he killed Bob Ewell. To begin, Boo Radley was at the scene of the attack. Lee describes Boo as having an awful cough that night when Scout says, “He coughed his dreadful railing cough, and was so shaken he had to sit down again” (Lee 371). This suggests that Boo was there because a man at the scene of the attack is described to have violently coughed. Next, Lee never states that Bob Ewell had a kitchen knife on him. Ewell tries to kill Scout with a switchblade, but is never seen with a kitchen knife. Also, if he was trying to kill the children and had an extra knife after his switchblade got caught in Scout’s costume, why didn’t he use that instead? It is much more conceivable that Boo Radley brought the knife. Kitchen knives are found at homes, such as the one that he ran out of. Finally, since Bob Ewell did not have the knife on him and...